Legal Writing for Legal Reading!

Archive for the month “September, 2014”

Many years ago it was the stuff of science fiction that our society would evolve to the point that everyone’s private information and whereabouts, and sometimes thought processes, would be monitored by outside forces, primarily law enforcement. To a large extent that fiction has become truth, and much of that truth has been fostered by people themselves, many of whom indiscriminately reveal many private things about themselves, including their whereabouts, purchasing choices, what they like and don’t like, information about their friends and relatives, and much more. In fact, there has been a sea change in our society about people’s willingness to provide information to other people, stores, and companies, and an equivalent diminishment in the number of people making attempts to protect their privacy. Even people’s perceptions of what information they feel is really private has drastically changed, but this is often generational.

The excerpt of the Anglicans Ablaze post is as follows: “The Southern Baptist Convention’s religious freedom entity has called for the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a municipal sign ordinance it says violates a church’s free speech and assembly rights.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) joined in a friend-of-the-court brief filed Sept. 22 that contends the sign code of Gilbert, Ariz., discriminates against churches while favoring political and ideological messages. The brief, filed by the Christian Legal Society (CLS), asserts the code is based on a sign’s content and therefore abridges the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

The high court will hear oral arguments in the case, Reed v. Town of Gilbert, in January or thereafter. It is expected to announce an opinion in the significant church-state case before it adjourns early in the summer of 2015.”

As most of my readers know, I have been following the copyright case pitting Roger Dean, the artist for the progressive rock band Yes (and other bands) against James Cameron, the creator of the movie Avatar and other films (the case is in the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York and assigned the case number 1:13-cv-04479-JMF). I have written on this subject before which you can read here.

The last time I posted on this issue, which you can see here, I reported that Mr. Dean’s case against Mr. Cameron was dismissed by the Court pursuant to a Motion to Dismiss filed by Mr. Cameron. When I shared this news with my Yes-fan cohorts across the internet, there was great wailing and gnashing of teeth over what they believed to be the injustice of the court system in dismissing Mr. Dean’s claims. They believe, much like Mr. Dean, me, and many others, that the look of Avatar clearly seems more than inspired by the look of Mr. Dean’s art (you can see side-by-side pictures of Avatar and Mr. Dean’s work here to make up your own mind).

I am not a copyright lawyer, so while I understand some of the legal issues presented in Mr. Dean’s case, some of it is a little beyond my areas of practice and my scope of knowledge. As it happens, one of my friends, Anthony Verna, Esquire, (of Kravitz & Verna) is a reputable copyright lawyer in New York where Mr. Dean’s case was filed. Mr. Verna is also the host of a copyright law podcast called Law and Business and took the time to look at the court documents associated with Mr. Dean’s case to share his views and shed some light on them in a podcast recorded on September 25, 2014. Not only that, Mr. Verna was nice enough to include me in that podcast, I guess as a resident Yes-and-Roger-Dean-fan-lawyer! I have never done a podcast before, and I have to say that it was a lot of fun and I hope I am invited to do it again!

As I said above, the name of the podcast is Law and Business and you can find the main podcast site here. The podcast featuring me discussing Mr. Dean’s case against Mr. Cameron can be found here. Happy Listening!

My wife (then girlfriend) Tiffani and my sister Jen went down to the see the spectacle. Needless to say it was both very cool but also very difficult. It was really cool to be a part of such an historic event and see such artists as Def Leppard, Dave Matthews Band, Natalie Portman, Will Smith, Maroon 5, Jennifer Connelly, Linkin Park, Bon Jovi, Stevie Wonder, and others. The entire list of performers (with internal links to each) can be found here. It was difficult to attend it because it consisted of many hours of standing in the blazing heat and very often shoulder to shoulder with other people; also transportation in and out of the area was horrendous! Surprisingly practically no crime occurred even though about a million people found their way to the Parkway. All in all it was a pretty cool experience and the photographs below document some of what I saw.

It’s depressing to see Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant minds in his field, trying to speak as an expert on things he sadly seems to know rather less about than many averagely intelligent Christians. Of course there are people who think of ‘heaven’ as a kind of pie-in-the-sky dream of an afterlife to make the thought of dying less awful. No doubt that’s a problem as old as the human race. But in the Bible ‘heaven’ isn’t ‘the place where people go when they die.’ In the Bible heaven is God’s space while earth (or, if you like, ‘the cosmos’ or ‘creation’) is our space. And the Bible makes it clear that the two overlap and interlock. For the ancient Jews, the place where this happened was the temple; for the Christians, the place where…

I had an unfortunate experience at a store recently. It is not the first time I have had this type of experience. As my Firm sends out thousands of greeting cards during the winter holidays, I decided to buy extra cards in case we ran out at a chain store in October. When we decided to send out a printed post card instead of cards this year, I tried to return the 23 boxes of cards I had bought. First I tried to return them the next month at the store where I bought them in southern New Jersey, but it was closed for a time after it was flooded out by Superstorm Sandy. When I tried to return them at another store in New Jersey the same day I was told that I couldn’t receive a cash refund, just an even exchange. I was shown the back of my…

[Author’s Note: since this post this matter has come to a conclusion about which you can read here.]

Over the last year and a half or so I have been watching the case of Roger Dean (artist for Yes, Asia, and other bands) against James Cameron (filmmaker famous for the movie Avatar and other films). I have written on this subject before which you can read here. If you read my other writing on this subject you will see a variety of pictures relevant to this case. The case between Dean and Cameron began on June 27, 2013 in the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York, Case No.: 1:13-cv-04479-JMF by the filing of a Complaint.

When I last posted an update on this case, which you can see here, James Cameron filed a Motion to Dismiss against Roger Dean’s above-mentioned complaint sounding in copyright infringement. Specifically, Mr. Dean believes Mr. Cameron misappropriated his images in making the film Avatar in violation of his copyright. On September 17, 2014, the Judge who heard this case granted Mr. Cameron’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed Mr. Dean’s complaint. You can read the judge’s decision in this case here: roger dean order.9-19-14 Mr. Dean, of course, has the right to appeal this dismissal and, considering the money involved, I would be surprised if no appeal is taken. If he does appeal, I will report on it here.

For those who do not understand the legal process, when someone (a plaintiff) files a complaint (i.e.: a law suit) against a another (a defendant) in court, a sued defendant has a right, at the proper time, to file a motion to dismiss (as Mr. Cameron did) against that complaint. To put it simply, a motion to dismiss asks the Court to look at the claims made by the plaintiff, the legal defenses made by the defendant, and the evidence available, and make a decision as to whether, more or less, that plaintiff could, regardless of the odds against it, win the case. If the court believes that the plaintiff presents no facts or legal arguments that, regardless of the odds, could win, it grants the motion to dismiss. In this case, the Court granted Mr. Cameron’s motion by ruling that Mr. Dean’s case simply could not legally win. Again, if you want to read the decision more closely, click here: roger dean order.9-19-14

I have to concede that my areas of law practice do not include intellectual property, copyright, or patents, so I cannot speak with specific knowledge of the areas of law in particular. Upon briefly reviewing the Court’s decision, it appears he ruled against Mr. Dean for a handful of reasons. First, Mr. Dean raised examples of copyright infringement in places other than the movie Avatar which he were not relevant to the suit, therefore the Court did not consider them. Second, the Court believed Mr. Dean manipulated images (by, for example, cropping, rotating, &c.) in order to make the alleged infringement appear worse or more prominent, which the Court would not consider either. Third, as you can see from the Court’s decision (here: roger dean order.9-19-14), in order to win a copyright infringement case one must meet a very high burden. Copyright infringement does not include the use of an idea (as opposed to the expression of an idea), things in the public domain, or mere similarity. Mr. Dean had to show that Mr. Cameron not only copied his work but copied the parts of his work that are protected by copyrights. The Court did not believe things like floating, flying reptiles, rock formations, or flora can be copyrighted as Mr. Dean suggests. Further, the Court believed that the mere similarity between Mr. Dean’s work and Mr. Cameron’s work did not rise to the level of copying. Finally, the Court did not think that the average lay observer would believe Mr. Cameron copied Mr. Dean’s work. The Court noted that simply being inspired by someone else’s work, and creating work clearly in that vein, is not copyright infringement.

The Court expanded upon all of its points in rendering its decision in much more detail that I have provided above and I invite all of my readers to look at the Court’s decision themselves in order to reach their own conclusions; again you can see the decision here: roger dean order.9-19-14

I realize that many of my readers are big Yes fans and/or Roger Dean fans and/or progressive rock fans and, on an emotional level, really wanted Mr. Dean to win this case; I did too, but you have to remember that the Court is tasked with rendering decisions based on the law and the law only. We will see how this case turns out and whether an appeal is taken. Until then, you can read more about this case here.

In the recent case of In re: S.J., heard by the Pennsylvania Superior Court (case number 584 EDA 2012), the Court implicitly ruled that “permanent legal custody” in a child dependency case is really only a euphemism for permanent for now. Dependency practitioners should keep this nuanced definition of “permanent” in mind when pursuing permanent legal custody of children.

In S.J. the Department of Human Services (“DHS”) filed a petition for a goal change with regard to the child at issue (“the Child”). Specifically, DHS had ruled out reunification with the Father as the Father had not been involved with the case since its inception and had not visited the Child or contacted DHS. Furthermore, DHS did not believe adoption by the foster mother to be a viable option as the biological mother still had a bond with the Child and the foster mother did not want to adopt. As a result, DHS advanced the position that the foster mother should be granted permanent legal custody.

Meanwhile, the biological mother testified that she was currently being rehabilitated for drug use and would continue rehabilitation for about a year-and-a-half more which would preclude custody of the Child over that time. It is notable that the biological mother did not contest DHS’ position that the foster mother should receive permanent legal custody.

The Child Advocate, the attorney representing the Child, took exception to DHS’ pursuit of the foster mother’s permanent legal custody when she learned, through the biological mother’s testimony, that the biological mother was advised by her attorney that she could file for custody when she believed she was ready for it. As a result, the Child Advocate objected to granting permanent legal custody to the foster mother.

The Child Advocate did not believe granting the foster mother permanent legal custody to be in the best interests of the Child because, as evidenced by the biological mother’s intention to pursue custody in the future, the permanent legal custody could, in fact, be something much less than permanent.

The Child Advocate argued that pursuing permanent legal custody is a rather litigious undertaking, involving several hearing dates over a long period of time, sending the Child’s life into upheaval. The Child Advocate was especially sensitive to the fact that after all of the upheaval to secure permanent legal custody, the biological mother could simply file for custody in family court, and undermine the permanent legal custody placement, rendering all of the upheaval pointless. Over the Child Advocate’s objections, the trial court granted the foster mother permanent legal custody; the Child Advocate appealed this decision.

In the appeal, the Child Advocate argued that the plain meaning of the word “permanent” in the underlying statute, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 6351, is as defined by any English dictionary, which is to say something perpetual and unchanging. As a result, the Child Advocate argued that once permanent legal custody is granted, it forecloses a parallel action for custody in family court. Once the permanent legal custody is granted, the Child Advocate argued, the biological mother could not file a motion to vacate it, but must again have the Child declared a dependent. To that end, per the Child Advocate, the trial court ought not have ruled out adoption for the Child as there was a lack of evidence regarding the Child’s bond with the foster mother. Ultimately, the Child Advocate argued that the trial court’s decision was not in the Child’s best interests.

When rendering its decision, Superior Court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and that the trial court did, in fact, consider the Child’s best interests. The Court found that the trial court found credible evidence of the safe and caring environment the foster mother provided the Child and placement with her certainly benefits the Child. Indeed, the Superior Court ruled that the trial court thoroughly reviewed all of the evidence and its ruling was consistent with the same.

The primary thrust of the Child Advocate’s argument centered on the biological mother’s indication that she intended to pursue custody at some point in the future. The Court refused to entertain any speculation as to the future possible actions of the biological mother. Indeed, the Court noted that the biological mother may never pursue custody, rendering the Child Advocate’s arguments moot and/or irrelevant. In fact, the Court’s ruling implies that delaying permanent legal custody due to accommodating an indefinite and speculative custody action taken by the biological mother would not be in the best interest of the Child.

Ultimately, the Court’s decision, while perhaps not explicitly stating it, simply accepted the fact that granting “permanent” legal custody is, in actuality, something much less than that. Instead, it is something that could very easily become impermanent upon an appropriate action by the biological mother. The Court did not consider whether the Juvenile Act and other appropriate law, statutes, and rules permit a biological mother to regain custody after the dismissal of a dependency petition and award of permanent legal custody, implicitly indicating that since the biological mother in this case had not yet filed for custody, the implications for doing so were not presently at issue.

Originally published in The Legal Intelligencer on March 23, 2013 and can be seen here and reprinted in Volume 35 Issue No. 2 (May 2013) of Pennsylvania Family Lawyer.

On Friday September 12, 2014 my friend Steve and I went to see King Crimson, that great pillar of progressive rock, live at the Kimmel Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I have seen King Crimson or variations of it a few times over the years. Specifically, I saw King Crimson live in 2003 at the Tower Theater in support of their then new album The Power to Believe. That concert was amazing, albeit ear piercingly loud, but, as has been Crimson’s practice for many years, the set list consisted of only very recent material (relative to the date of the show) and group improvisation (I would note that, as it relied only on very recent material, the show was disappointingly short too as it was not even 90 minutes in duration). Other than that, I have seen a Crimson subset (e.g.: a “FraKCtal”), ProjeKCt Six, and Robert Fripp as a solo performer, each open for Porcupine Tree at different times. Of course, relatedly, I have seen Tony Levin live a few times in other contexts, namely with Liquid Tension Experiment, California Guitar Trio, and his own band.

Although I am an enormous King Crimson fan (they are in my top three with Yes at number one and (old) Genesis vying with Crimson for number two), I have not made a point to see them a lot mainly because, as I stated above, their practice has been to generally ignore older material in favor of the album or two immediately prior to the concert being played. As much as I like new Crimson material, it is the old stuff that broke ground, made legions of devoted followers, and made me a fan, and it is that material I want to see and hear live.

When I heard that King Crimson was to go on the road with three drummers/percussionists, I thought that was interesting but not enough to go see them live as they have had two drummers/percussionists many times before (e.g.: 1972/’73, 1994/’95/’96, and 2007-present) and a third drummer did not seem to tip me in favor of paying the price of admission, especially if they would just play newer stuff. Then I heard that venerable woodwind player Mel Collins would be rejoining the band. Collins played with the band on their second, third, and fourth albums (1970 – 71), the classic Red, as well as their most recent offering A Scarcity of Miracles. Now, the addition of Collins is interesting because, by and large, King Crimson has left the material of the early 1970s behind and I hoped that his presence in the band would inspire Fripp to mine King Crimson’s very rich back catalog. Indeed, aside from a couple of tracks on Red, King Crimson has not had a woodwind player since 1971! So, needless to say, adding one again in 2014 sent a clear message to me as to what the band’s intentions were for this tour. Subsequent internet rumors confirmed that Crimson would be playing a generous swath of old material on this tour that has basically gone unplayed for four decades, so that sealed it for me: between the three drummers, Collins, and the material to be played, I now had to go see this show! Indeed, I am happy to say that at this show, King Crimson played material from all eras of their history except the 1980’s and their lone album of the 1990’s (Thrak), which is fine by me as that material is my least favorite anyway (save for their latest album). To make this happen, Crimson also featured players from all throughout their history and a new guy (Bill Rieflin) to boot! As of this writing I am thirty-seven years old and I never thought I would ever hear some of this material played live by King Crimson and for that I will always be thankful I had the opportunity to see this show!

The venue was absolutely beautiful. It usually is the theater for the Philadelphia Orchestra but I guess they also allow other artists to use it as well. It is large with interesting curved walls, is made almost entirely of nice wood, and has a large pipe organ in the back wall. A great setting for a great band.

As you will see below, after some basic information I will give an overview of the show, make comments on some individual pieces, and post some photographs of the show.

The only word I can think of for this show is “face-melting.” This was one of the best concerts I have ever seen, bar none. It was amazingly tight, intense, and relentless. I thought the three drummers might create a noisy cacophony that would overtake the rest of the band, but thankfully that turned out not to be the case. There were times when the drums became a little strong, but they never crossed the line and were generally tasteful and well arranged. They did, however, take an already intense band to a level they had not yet achieved before. There was clearly a pecking order among the drummers. As one may expect, they tried a lot of different variations, but, generally speaking, Harrison was the “lead” drummer with Mastelotto supporting him and Rieflin providing a lot of color. Rieflin also doubled as a keyboard player, especially for the older stuff. I think the very expanded line up and multi-instrumentalists allowed the band to really flesh out their sound and capture many of the overdubs found on the albums. Collins’ role was interesting. Obviously he played the role he carved for himself on the pieces he played on originally. When it came to the other material on which there was not originally a woodwind instrument in the music, Collins would often play in place of David Cross‘ violin or viola (King Crimson featured a violin and viola in its middle-1970’s period) or harmonize with the guitars or improvise a solo or melody over the rhythm created by the band (e.g.: during “Red” he would play a saxophone over some of it). Although Fripp seems like an imposing and inflexible figure, I have to say that he is surprisingly (to me) an extremely unselfish lead guitar player. He very often allowed Jakszyk to play his own lead parts (or shared them with him) or solos and, when Collins did not, Fripp would duplicate some of Cross’ violin/viola parts on his guitar. I have to say that one of the best parts about seeing a concert, especially of a talented band playing challenging music, is seeing how the band can “pull it off,” and this show, with its three drummers and woodwind player to boot, was no exception! The only thing missing from this show that has always been a feature of a King Crimson concert was improvisation. There was no group improvisation, as has been so typical of Crimson for decades and even many of the solos did not vary much from the albums at times.

As usual, Fripp entered the stage from the opposite side from rest of the band. Once he got situated on his stool and behind his wall of electronics, the show began in earnest. They all wore some variation on a three piece suit. The stage presentation was interesting: all the drummers lined up front while the other four stood on risers behind the drummers. There was virtually no stage presence or visual show at all. The stage was brightly lit and equally lit on all parts of it. There were no spotlights or changing light colors or any sort of visual element to the lights at all. It was lit just as the orchestra would be lit, for the utilitarian purpose of allowing the band to see one another and allowing the audience to see them. Also, the band did not appear to have any amplifiers of their own on stage. They used the venue’s public address system to play their music. I am not sure if the lights and sound set ups as described above were due to the venue’s rules or the band’s choice, but neither adversely affected the music. Consistent with having very little stage presence, all players stood in their place (or sat in the case of Fripp) rather stoically and played their music, and rarely engaged personally with the audience. Indeed, as common for him, Fripp sat facing the band instead of the audience. Their lack of audience engagement even extended to them not having any inter-song banter. They just began their show, played one song after another, and finished. In fact, as my friend Steve noticed, they never (at least not as we noticed) even counted off the tempo to begin a piece of music. Each piece began as if the band were of one mind.

The sound mix was challenging with the three drummers pounding away. I can say that only on a couple of occasions did the sound get a little muddy which, unfortunately, almost always caused Collins’ saxophone to get lost in the mix. In saying that, I have been to enough concerts to know that a good mix for my section of the theater is not necessarily good for another, and vice versa, so one cannot be too critical of the mix. I do have to say that Levin’s playing very often got buried by the two guitars and the woodwinds. Granted, he is the bass player and is supposed to lay down the bottom, but I would have liked to hear him a little better throughout the show. Luckily, the band was tasteful in that the seven players did not all insist on playing something at all times if the music did not warrant it. Interestingly, I have been to many many many concerts and this is one of the only shows I can think of where no one in the band ever gestured to one another or to a sound man off stage to adjust his volume levels. I am not exaggerating when I say that they all entered the stage, played their songs one after another without fanfare, and then concluded. The only light moments were, on occasion, between some of the songs where they would play goofy and spliced clips of interviews with the band and a sometimes inarticulate interviewer.

Some of the songs had some interesting highlights which I note below:

Larks’ Tongues in Aspic Part 1

As much as I looked forward to this show, I was a little skeptical as to how they would pull it off, and opening with this piece is a bold statement. After the drummers played the tuned percussion opening and Fripp’s guitar played Cross’ violin part to introduce the piece, all of my concerns washed away when Jakszyk played the opening guitar line (which was originally played by Fripp on the album) in literally (to my ears) the exactly same tone and sound as the album. I knew then this was the real deal and this was going to be a fantastic show. This piece was as it should be: complex percussion, loud and crunchy riffs, and a foreboding quiet sections (where Collins’ flute replaced Cross’ violin).

Pictures of a City

I was surprised to have heard this piece as it has not been played since 1970! This is the first song off their second album and when this was played I knew the band was going to be going deep into the back catalog! Unfortunately, Collins’ saxophone was little buried in the mix at times. Jakszyk’s voice was not quite as clear, pure and choir boy like as Greg Lake‘s voice (who originally sung on this song and is my favorite singer) but it got the job done.

The ConstruKction of Light

Collins played a saxophone over some of the more complex guitar lines which was an interesting addition. On the album, this track segues seamlessly into a second part of this song (tracked separately) which includes vocals in order to conclude it. At this concert, however, the band elected to conclude it differently by merely allowing the music to gradually slow into a gentle pastoral section led by flute, in a way very similar to how the Genesis song “Dancing with the Moonlit Knight” concludes.

One More Red Nightmare

This is one of my favorite Crimson songs. Collins was really able to wail away during the instrumental sections. Interestingly, between each main guitar riff, each drummer took his turn playing the drum breaks. Jakszyk tried his voice on this John Wetton (the original singer of this song) tune, but, like his attempt to sing Lake’s material, his voice just is not quite right. This time, Wetton’s voice is a little too soulful and harsh for Jakszyk to duplicate effectively. As expected, this piece was loud and intense and aggressive. Fantastic.

HooDoo (new for this show)

This was a mellow, quiet, and pastoral instrumental piece for electric upright bass and two flutes. Jakszyk unexpectedly played the second flute. This piece was composed for the tour.

Red

As expected, this piece was aggressive and meaty. Levin played his electric upright bass during the quieter parts which effectively reproduced the bass cello played by Mark Charig on the original recording. Moreover, at times Collins improvised a saxophone solo over the rhythmic parts to this piece. The three sets of drums added an interesting dimension to this piece by making it somewhat march like.

Sailor’s Tale and The Letters

I was so surprised to see these tracks from the very obscure and mostly ignored album Islands. What a delightful surprise! The enlarged band line up was able to fully play all of the parts on the album and really flesh out the sound; the keyboards and Levin’s electric upright bass did well to capture the music as found on the album. The cymbal work by the three drummers was very tastefully done; at one point they were playing light taps in sequence one after the other. Jakszyk, now reproducing Boz Burrell‘s voice, did a really good job presenting his vocal parts. He really captured the tone and sound of Burrell’s voice.

Level Five

This is another song where Collins, having no role when the song was recorded, took the opportunity to play some improvised saxophone lines over some rhythmic parts.

Hell Bells

This was a drum trio piece written for this tour.

The Talking Drum

This is one of my favorite Crimson pieces, and the three drummers really took it to the next level. I just wish Levin’s bass was not so buried in the mix on this. Collins and Jakszyk added interesting dimensions as well, sometimes covering Cross’ parts and sometimes not.

Starless

What a classic King Crimson piece; some consider it the best ever. I have seen this track played live once before by the band U.K. which features John Wetton who sung on this song originally with Crimson. King Crimson played this song live before it was recorded for the Red album (as can be heard on The Great Deceiver) and the band used a violin in the piece and no woodwinds. When it was eventually recorded on Red, Cross and his violin were out and Collins and his saxophone was in, as that is as it was in at this concert as well. I am not sure which performance I liked better. U.K. had Wetton’s soulful voice and authentic bass playing along with Eddie Jobson‘s amazing keyboard and violin playing. At this show, Fripp played the mournful guitar lines as only he can play them, Rieflin played the keyboard lines, and Collins played the saxophone parts he recorded forty-years ago. All I can say is that this piece of music is simply amazing and this concert was no exception.

Encore: Hell-Hounds of Krim

This was another drum trio piece written for this tour, this time very reminiscent of “B’Boom” from Thrak (which was originally a drum duo piece).

Encore: Twenty-First Century Schizoid Man

The band closed with the very first song from their very first album which, as it happens, may be their most famous. The blasting saxophones and searing guitar were vintage Crimson excitement. Levin’s bass was buried again, but it did not really matter. Although the band played it a little slower than the album, the fast runs and abrupt starts and stops were impressive nonetheless.

And now for some photographs!

Tony Levin takes photos from his perspective of the show and blogs about his concerts, and this one was no different. You can find his blog entry on this show here. In the photos from the stage that Levin took, you can see me five people to the right of the big guy in the red shirt on the third balcony; below is a photo from Levin’s page and you can barely see my head.

Finally, Steve and I took some photos at the show as well and they are posted below. Steve took the first two and I took the rest and Levin’s photo is posted last.